PRIDE IS AN OBSTACLE TO UNDERSTANDING THAT LEADS TO CHANGE
Change hinges on open-mindedness. The obstacle to open-mindedness is pride that says, “I already know enough to make good decisions.” This is especially true in politics and religion.

Ability to hear/read and absorb new information will not happen unless there is a willingness to accept that old beliefs are no longer adequate to manage new situations. Sadly, most voters are slow to seek out new information that challenges old beliefs. The exceptions to this rule are independents and crossover voters.

America’s current social/political conflicts are, at root, based on traditional, deeply held beliefs about both politics and religion. Recognizing this, strategies for change must be managed with extreme sensitivity. The kind of change America needs will not happen if people from one end of its social/political/religious spectrums to the other are not willing to sacrifice their political and religious self-righteousness (i.e. pride.) Pride is the primary obstacle that leads to understanding that leads to positive change.

Prideful people have difficulty seeking new information. In politics and religion, adherents to a party or a religion get their cues about what to believe from leaders and members of their party or religion. Loyalty to the religion or party creates an incentive for evangelism designed to grow the party/religion. But loyalty is also an obstacle to seeking or accepting new information that might contradict existing beliefs in the party or religion. When and how people seek out and/or accept new information is revealed in the following, well‑known, psychological patterns that fuel the evangelism engines evident in religion and politics:

Moral conviction and identity fusion

• • When activists experience their cause as a core part of who they are, and someone disagrees with them, it feels like personal rejection.
  • Strong moral conviction reduces tolerance for ambiguity; if an issue is framed as absolute good vs evil, seeing oneself as firmly on the “good” side is predictable.

Ego protection and insecurity

• • Self‑righteousness protects religious and political believers against doubt, shame, or past powerlessness: “If I and my co-believers are clearly on the right side, we don’t have to feel vulnerable, or wrong, or shame.”
  • Taking the moral high ground compensates for feelings of insignificance, giving a sense of superiority and control.

Group belonging and social rewards

• • Because religious and political movements reward outrage against enemies and certainty of belief more than nuance, activists gain status and validation by sounding morally pure and uncompromising.
  • In tightly knit political and religious activist circles, self‑righteous rhetoric signals loyalty to the group and helps maintain in‑group cohesion.

Black‑and‑white thinking and cognitive shortcuts

• • When complex realities are mentally simplified (i.e. conspiracy theories) into heroes vs villains, victims vs oppressors, saved vs lost, truth vs lies, right vs wrong, moral vs immoral, contempt for the “other side” feels justified.
  • Once someone is slotted into a “bad” category (e.g. bigot, heretic, fascist, liberal, etc.), it becomes easy to dismiss their motives and humanity.

Confirmation bias and closed information loops

• • Activists tend to seek information that confirms what they already believe and avoid disconfirming evidence.
  • Over time, what people hear in their echo chambers makes their own position seem obviously correct and unassailable. Then dissent/disagreement isn’t just wrong, but morally corrupt.

Asymmetric moral judgment

• • People usually judge their own actions by their intentions (“I meant well”) but judge others by visible behavior (“They did harm”), which makes them feel more righteous than opponents.
  • This asymmetry encourages a belief that says, “we’re at worst imperfect in our efforts, but our enemies are hypocritical or evil.”

Narcissistic gratification and moral “high ground”

• • Activism produces a genuine emotional payoff in feeling morally superior. Indignation, contempt, or “calling out” others can produce a sense of power and purity.
  • When the emotional high of activism becomes addictive, religious and political activists aggressively seek situations (e.g. protests, rallies, religious services, etc.) that allow them to feel self‑righteously outraged more often in the company of fellow believers.

Fear, threat, and perceived stakes

• • When people believe the stakes are existential (e.g. salvation vs damnation, democracy vs tyranny, good vs evil, etc.), compromise feels like betrayal.
  • Under threat, humans naturally tighten boundaries, distrust out‑groups more, and cling harder to certainty, and any action or belief that amplifies self‑righteous pride.

Self‑righteous pride in activists grows from a mix of deep psychological needs: to see themselves as morally good, to belong securely to a valued group, and to manage fear, shame, or past powerlessness. Strong moral conviction, black‑and‑white thinking, and echo‑chamber information environments reinforce a sense of absolute rightness, so that defending the cause becomes intertwined with defending the self, making humility, doubt, and genuine openness to other views feel threatening. These characteristics apply in all religions and all political parties. These are all natural human responses to complex social/political environments but, as we see in America today, if they are not recognized and managed with great care, the results will be traumatic.